Compare traditional and modern leadership theories
Distinguish great-person, charismatic and transformational accounts, compare Ohio and Michigan behaviour models, and apply Heifetz and Laurie’s six principles to an adaptive challenge.
Section Paper 4 · Specialist Options: Application and Research Methods
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.2, 2028–2030 Version 1. Example studies illustrate the syllabus and are not official Cambridge materials or mark schemes.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.2.1. The theories are explanatory frameworks; assess a claim against the behaviour, situation and measured outcome.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which statement accurately describes the two Ohio State behaviour dimensions?
What you will learn
- Universalist theories: great-person, charismatic and transformational leadership
- Ohio and Michigan behavioural leadership theories
- Heifetz’s six principles for adaptive challenges and leader responsibilities
Universalist accounts explain leadership through qualities or influence
Great-person accounts look for exceptional qualities in leaders and have often implied that leaders are born rather than made. This is a historical explanation, not a demonstrated rule: leadership can also be learned, shared and shaped by a situation. Do not treat gender, class, personality labels or a single success as proof that someone is naturally suited to lead.
Charismatic leadership focuses on how a leader is perceived and on the influence that can follow. A compelling vision, confidence and strong communication may help followers identify with a leader or purpose. Charisma is not automatically ethical or effective: followers may challenge a leader, and confidence does not guarantee sound decisions.
Transformational leadership describes a process in which leaders and followers work toward a shared purpose and changes in motivation or values. Bass’s account commonly distinguishes idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. These behaviours can be examined separately; describing a leader as transformational does not by itself establish that performance or wellbeing improved.
These approaches differ in emphasis. Great-person accounts foreground leader qualities; charismatic accounts foreground perceived influence and follower response; transformational accounts foreground change in a shared purpose and in how people work toward it. They are not interchangeable and should not be used as a universal ranking of leaders.
Behavioural models examine what leaders do
The Ohio State studies describe two dimensions: consideration, such as listening and showing respect, and initiating structure, such as clarifying roles, plans and standards. They are separate dimensions, so a leader can show more or less of each rather than having to choose one end of a single line.
The Michigan studies contrast employee-centred behaviour, which attends to people and relationships, with production-centred behaviour, which gives more attention to tasks and output. This is a broad distinction from the research programme; it should not be reduced to a claim that every task-focused leader ignores employees or that one style always wins.
Both programmes moved attention from supposedly fixed leader traits toward observable behaviour. Their findings do not establish one best behaviour for every group. A fair evaluation identifies the setting, follower needs, task, outcomes and measures, and considers whether relationship and task behaviours can be combined.
Adaptive leadership helps people do work that has no ready-made fix
Heifetz and Laurie distinguish technical problems, which can often be addressed with known expertise and procedures, from adaptive challenges, which require people to learn, change priorities or revise established habits. A challenge may contain both: a new system can require technical installation and adaptive changes to responsibilities.
Their six principles are: get on the balcony to notice patterns; identify the adaptive challenge; regulate distress so people can keep working; maintain disciplined attention on difficult issues; give the work back to the people who must learn; and protect voices of leadership from below. These are responsibilities and prompts for action, not a step-by-step guarantee of success.
A leader applying the principles would gather different perspectives, make the underlying change visible, keep discussion safe enough to continue, and avoid taking over work the group needs to do. The leader still has responsibilities for direction, boundaries and safety. ‘Giving work back’ does not mean abandoning people or shifting blame onto those with less power.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Heifetz and Laurie (1997), The Work of Leadership
- Bass (1990), From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision
- Kerr et al. (1974), Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature
Pause and explain
Which example is most clearly an adaptive challenge?
Worked example
A service team’s error rate has risen after customers moved to a new digital process. Staff say the workflow is unfamiliar, some managers blame individual effort, and frontline workers are reluctant to report problems. Use one universalist account, one behavioural model and Heifetz and Laurie’s principles to plan a response.
Show the worked solution
- Separate the known technical task of fixing defects from the adaptive task of changing routines and speaking-up norms.
- Use the Ohio dimensions to identify how the leader can clarify responsibilities while listening to staff.
- Apply relevant Heifetz principles and name a measure that would test improvement without hiding errors.
Answer A charismatic or transformational account might explain how a shared purpose could help staff engage, but it does not diagnose the workflow or prove the leader will succeed. The manager could provide clear roles and checkpoints (initiating structure) while inviting staff accounts (consideration). Getting on the balcony could reveal recurring failure points; identifying the adaptive challenge could separate software defects from habits that discourage reporting. The team can test a repair, track errors and near misses, and protect staff who raise concerns. A lower reported error count alone would be unsafe evidence if staff have become less willing to report.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A leader gives clear deadlines but rarely asks staff for input. Explain the behaviour using the Ohio model and propose a balanced next step.
Give me a hint
Use the two Ohio dimensions separately, then relate the change to the actual task.
Compare my reasoning
- Clear deadlines and roles show initiating structure.
- The scenario gives little evidence of consideration; do not infer the leader’s motives.
- The leader could retain clear standards and invite staff feedback about barriers.
- Check both task results and staff experience rather than assuming one change works for all.
The deadlines suggest initiating structure, while the limited consultation gives little evidence of consideration. The leader could preserve clear responsibilities and add regular two-way check-ins so staff can identify barriers. Because the dimensions are separate, increasing consideration need not remove structure. Outcomes should be checked in this team and task.
Look for these in your work
- Correct Ohio labels
- Dimensions kept separate
- Application is specific and evaluated
A manager announces an inspiring vision and calls the change transformational. Assess what further evidence would be needed before accepting that claim.
Give me a hint
A label or speech is not an outcome measure. Identify behaviour, follower response and outcomes.
Compare my reasoning
- Look for evidence of a shared purpose and changes in how people are motivated or work together.
- Distinguish the leader’s message from followers’ response and from later outcomes.
- Specify outcomes such as service quality or staff participation and how they were measured.
- Consider other explanations, the time period, access to resources and who was included.
An inspiring announcement alone is insufficient. Evidence should show whether staff understood and shared the purpose, whether relevant behaviours changed, and whether outcomes improved using a defined measure and timeframe. Results could also reflect staffing, resources, policy or market changes, so the transformational label does not establish causation or universal effectiveness.
Look for these in your work
- Evidence beyond a label
- Follower behaviour considered
- Alternative explanations and measures stated
Your school wants staff and students to report recurring barriers to a new learning platform. Design a response using Heifetz and Laurie, then state how you would evaluate it.
Give me a hint
Identify both technical and adaptive parts; protect feedback and avoid treating low reports as automatic improvement.
Compare my reasoning
- Separate technical defects from routines, confidence or norms that affect use and reporting.
- Use a balcony view to look for patterns and identify the adaptive challenge with users.
- Regulate distress, maintain attention, return appropriate problem-solving to users and protect less powerful voices.
- Track platform function, participation, resolution time and feedback; interpret reporting volume cautiously.
The school should fix documented technical defects while consulting users about routines and concerns that require learning. A cross-role group can map patterns, test manageable changes and keep attention on unresolved barriers. Staff and students need safe channels to speak up. Evaluation could combine system reliability, participation, time to resolve issues and user interviews; fewer reports would not count as success if access or trust had declined.
Look for these in your work
- Technical and adaptive elements distinguished
- Relevant principles applied
- Evaluation combines measures and includes a reporting caveat
Common mistakes
- Treating great-person ideas as proof that leaders are born or that leadership cannot be learned
- Using charismatic and transformational as synonyms
- Assuming a transformational label proves positive outcomes
- Treating Ohio’s two dimensions as opposite ends of one scale
- Claiming that one Michigan style is always best
- Calling a problem adaptive when a known technical repair is sufficient
- Interpreting ‘give the work back’ as withdrawing support or transferring blame
What can you explain now?
What is the main difference between the Ohio and Michigan behavioural models?
Compare with the explanation
Ohio distinguishes the separate dimensions of consideration and initiating structure. Michigan contrasts employee-centred and production-centred behaviour.
Name the model before explaining its dimensions; do not merge their labels.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Compare the great-person, charismatic and transformational accounts, distinguish the Ohio and Michigan behaviour models, and recall all six Heifetz and Laurie principles.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.